‘I’ve Always Fought a Little against the Tide to Get Where I Want to Be’—Construction of Women’s Embodied Subjectivity in the Contested Terrain of High-Level Karate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karate can be both a martial art and a combat sport. Male and female karate athletes attended the Tokyo Olympic Games 2020 (2021). Elite sport often portrays female athletes through the sexualization of their bodies, while the martial environment leaves them open to accusations of masculinization. In the process of constructing themselves as fighters, karateka women do produce new ways of performing femininities and masculinities, which is a hard-work process of negotiations, leading them to the construction of a particular habitus strictly linked to their performativity within the environment. They take part in a contested terrain that mixes several elements that are often contrasting. In this article, we aim to present factors identified with the women athletes of the Spanish Olympic karate team that affect the construction of their embodied subjectivities. We focus on two main topics, authenticity as the real deal to belonging, and a possible gendered habitus struggling with the achievement of the condition of a warrior. We carried out an ethnographic study with the Spanish Olympic karate squad supported by autoethnographic elements from the first author. We focus here on the data from double interviews with 14 women athletes and their four male coaches. Embodied subjectivity as a process of subject construction to disrupt objectification and forms of othering showed to be a challenge, a complex task, and embedded in contradictions. Karate women’s embodied subjectivities are built in the transit between resisting and giving in. Despite several difficulties, through awareness and reflection on limitations, karateka may occupy their place as subjects, exerting agency, feeling empowered, and fighting consciously against the naturalized ‘tide’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".